Dataset Information

Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest: an evaluation of orthopaedic surgery patients' understanding.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Industry and orthopaedic surgeons often partner to develop new technology, which can lead to orthopaedic surgeons having financial conflicts of interest (FCOI). It is essential these FCOI be conveyed clearly to patients. It is unclear, however, whether and to what degree patients understand the ramifications of physician FCOI.

Questions/purposes

We evaluated (1) patients' concerns regarding their surgeon having FCOI or the presence of institutional FCOI, (2) the effect of surgeon FCOI on patients' willingness to have surgery, and (3) patients' understanding of FCOI.

Methods

We asked 101 patients (66% female) receiving total joint arthroplasty from the orthopaedic practices of two surgeons at an academic health center to complete a descriptive, correlational designed survey at their 6-week followup appointment. The data collected included patient demographics, knowledge of FCOI, and the influence of FCOI on patient attitudes toward surgery and their surgeon.

Results

A minority of patients (13%) reported discussing FCOI with prior physicians and only 55% agreed or strongly agreed a surgeon should disclose FCOI. Only 15% of patients believed such conflicts would make them less likely to have their surgeon operate on them. Level of education was weakly correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.29) with patient understanding of FCOI.

Conclusions

Overall, patients had a poor understanding of FCOI. Both level of education and previous discussions of FCOI predicted better understanding. This study emphasizes communication of FCOI with patients needs to be enhanced.

SUBMITTER: Lieberman JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3549175 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest: an evaluation of orthopaedic surgery patients' understanding.

Lieberman Jay R JR Pensak Michael J MJ Kelleher Michael S MS Leger Robin R RR Polkowski Gregory G GG

Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20130201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Industry and orthopaedic surgeons often partner to develop new technology, which can lead to orthopaedic surgeons having financial conflicts of interest (FCOI). It is essential these FCOI be conveyed clearly to patients. It is unclear, however, whether and to what degree patients understand the ramifications of physician FCOI.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>We evaluated (1) patients' concerns regarding their surgeon having FCOI or the presence of institutional FCOI, (2) the effect ...[more]

PMID: 22948521

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAuthors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) disclose financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) to promote transparency ethics. Typically, they do so on standard declaration forms containing generic open-ended questions on FCOIs. Yet, the literature is scant on the format and effect of alternative disclosure forms. Does supplementing a standard form with subsequent detailed disclosure forms tailored to the context of the CPG improve the yield or accuracy of FCOIs declarations?MethodsFor an international CPG in gastroenterology on the endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease, we compared the use of a standard FCOIs disclosure form with a contextual FCOIs disclosure form that detailed commercial relations related to the CPG topic. This included manufacturers of endoscopes, endoscopy equipment and accessories. Participants completed the generic form early, and the supplementary contextual form six months later. We then compared the FCOI disclosures obtained.Findings26 participants provided FCOIs disclosures using both disclosure forms. We found discrepancies regarding (1) the disclosure of FCOIs (presence/absence), and (2) the listing of financial entities. While the number of participants who disclosed a FCOI remained the same (30.8%) using the two forms, disclosures were not from the same individuals: two additional participants disclosed a FCOI, whereas two participants withdrew previous disclosures. Among those who reported a FCOI in either form, we noted inconsistencies in disclosures for 70% of the participants. This included changes in FCOIs disclosure status or modifications of "their commercial relations".DiscussionAccurate reporting of FCOIs advances the transparency and ethical integrity of CPGs. Our experience suggests that a contextual FCOIs disclosure form tailored to content of the CPG with narrow, detailed questions provides supplementary, more complete FCOIs declarations than generic forms alone. The finding raises challenges on how forms are best written and formatted, optimally timed, and more effectively processed with sensitivity to professional behaviour, so as to heighten transparency.

Project description:BackgroundPeer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers' and applicants' perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications.Methodology and principal findingsWe designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists.ConclusionsOur study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable.

Project description:Importance:Patient advocacy organizations are nonprofit organizations that represent patients with medical conditions. Although these organizations may increase disease awareness and influence health care policy, reports have suggested financial relationships between organizations and drug, device, and biotechnology companies, which may lead to potential conflicts of interest. The extent of these conflicts has not been explored among patient advocacy organizations in dermatology. Objective:To examine potential financial conflicts of interest and characterize disclosure practices among dermatology patient advocacy organizations. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study of the largest dermatology patient advocacy organizations using the Kaiser Health News database acquired data on total revenue from each organization's Form 990 for the year 2015. Tax forms and annual reports from 2017 were used for 2 organizations that were missing donor information for 2015. Annual reports, websites, and LinkedIn profiles were manually examined to ascertain donations and determine disclosure practices pertaining to financial support and board membership. Main Outcomes and Measures:The amount and minimum proportion of donations attributable to industry sponsorship among organizations as well as the proportion of organizations disclosing (1) industry-sponsored financial support, (2) the amount of industry-derived donations, and (3) current and past relationships between governing board members and industry sponsors. Results:This study identified 24 dermatology patient advocacy organizations with annual revenues that exceeded $500 000. Of these, 5 (21%) had total donations that exceeded $5 million and 4 (17%) reported industry donations that exceeded $500 000. Two organizations (8%) reported having at least 40% of total donations from industry sponsorship. Overall, 17 organizations (71%) reported receiving donations from industry on the annual report or the website and 12 (50%) reported the amount of donations in ranges. None of the organizations reported the exact amount or use of donations. On the basis of annual reports and websites, 3 organizations (13%) reported having a current or former industry executive on the organization's governing board. When this search was replicated using LinkedIn, this figure was at least 54%. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest inconsistent disclosure of industry-derived financial support and board membership that may represent conflicts of interest. Policies that support the transparency and consistency of disclosure practices between industry and patient advocacy organizations appear to be needed to fully characterize the extent of conflicts of interest among patient advocacy organizations in dermatology and maintain trust in these important institutions.

Project description:ImportanceConflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.ObjectivesThe goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.ResultsOf 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.ConclusionsApproximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Dataset Information

Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest: an evaluation of orthopaedic surgery patients' understanding.

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest: an evaluation of orthopaedic surgery patients' understanding.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets